 Soldiers For The Truth (sftt.us) Weekly Magazine When we assumed the Soldier, We did not lay aside the Citizen. General George Washington, to the New York Legislature, 1775 September 11, 2002 In this week’s Issue of DefenseWatch Magazine: 9/11/02 |
Soldiers For The Truth (sftt.us) Weekly Magazine When we assumed the Soldier, We did not lay aside the Citizen. General George Washington, to the New York Legislature, 1775 September 11, 2002 In this week’s Issue of DefenseWatch Magazine: 9/11/02 |
| Hack's Target For The Week: |
Apathy and Pork = Another 9/11 By David H. Hackworth Last week, Congress convened in Slapped on their desks after almost a dozen attacks by Osama bin Laden against our soldiers, sailors, airmen and installations – 17 months before he clobbered us during his second terrible go at the twin towers – the report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century stated: “America's safety from direct attack, especially involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by either states or terrorists” is of critical concern to our country, which “must focus anew on how to maintain a robust and powerful deterrent to all forms of attacks on its territory and its critical assets.” Hart-Rudman's prescient recommendation calling for a cabinet-level National Homeland Security Agency, which would recast “crippled” State and Defense departments so sorely in need of change, got the same treatment as the early warnings that the Japanese were going to do us at Pearl Harbor. Probably because in early 2000, the name of the game was – as always – protecting the pork: Congress and the president were ready to fling cruise missiles at the terrorist camps whenever they zapped a U.S. ship, embassy or base and were using these incidents to garner more gold-plated toys for our conventionally oriented military to mount another Cold War. Osama bin Laden and his martyrs-in-the-making all but gave Congress, our multiple intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and the rest of our more-than-half-a-trillion-dollars-a-year national-security apparatus an engraved invitation to 9/11. But once again, only a few grunts at the bottom got the message, and, as usual, nobody at the top bothered to listen. Our country never learns until it's too late. From Now some Americans are rationalizing 9/11 as a big wake-up. Except that after our Navy, Air Force and Special Forces heroes kicked the Taliban's butt in Not a smart move, since this is no conventional fight that was all wrapped up when Ask yourself how many terrorist sleepers waiting for “execute” orders have been nailed in the past year. Or how many terrorist sympathizers still raising millions of bucks on our soil to fund their campaigns against us have been rolled up. Sure, there are dozens of ongoing investigations, but they are disjointed, disorganized and watching-grass-grow slow. And our intelligence agencies are still refusing to work together and fully share critical information. One year after 9/11, our outfits fighting terrorism remain huge bureaucracies that are fat around the middle, slow on their feet, take forever to make a decision and seem more interested in their own survival than our country's. And guess what, folks: Two and one-half years after the Hart-Rudman report hit Congress – after all the carnage – that long-winded body still doesn't have the Homeland Security Agency up and running! Unless Congress gets its head out of business-as-usual and starts leading from the front, we'll do a lot more bleeding before our blubber-laden officialdom wakes up and understands the war at hand enough to get it right somewhere down the track. If we had more veterans in Congress, for sure we'd shift gears faster. You tend to get your war-fighting priorities together and see defense matters a lot more clearly if you've spent hard time in a hot foxhole. http://www.hackworth.com is the address of David Hackworth's home page. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. Look for his new book, “Steel My Soldiers' Hearts,” (Rugged Land LLC, New York City). © 2002 David H. Hackworth |
| From The Editor: |
By Ed Offley It seemed to be the ending of one war, but it was actually the bare beginning of another when I walked out onto the flightline at A familiar silhouette caught my eye and I walked over to the Navy EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft parked in the sunshine, and found two Navy aviators conducting a pre-flight inspection. The four-seat, 60-foot-long Prowler was a familiar sight to me, since its only Navy home air station was in I introduced myself to the pilot and naval flight officer, then with a grin asked how the Navy was employing an electronic jamming aircraft against a failed country that had not had any measurable electricity in over a year (I had personally seen the ravaged former U.S. embassy in Mogadishu three days earlier, where looters had literally stripped the wiring out of the building to steal its copper). The pilot, a young lieutenant, grinned back: “We’re adapting to the new threat environment,” he said. “Climb up and look for yourself.” I mounted the ladder and looked in the aft cockpit where normally two electronics countermeasures officers would sit manipulating the aircraft’s sensitive receiving antennas and powerful jamming pods. Piled to the cockpit rim were bags of mail for the USS Kitty Hawk carrier battle group 100 miles offshore. Neither the aviators, nor I, nor the Pentagon knew at that time that an obscure terrorist organization named al Qaeda was planning to send fighters to train Somali fighters in ambush tactics that they would use against Task Force Ranger in October 1993, an event that we now recognize as the first battle of the current war against terrorism. Memories of that chance encounter came to mind this week as the What occurred a year ago has been described in minute detail as a government-wide failure to anticipate the new threat that suicidal hijackers could achieve with several hundred thousand dollars, several years of careful planning, and the steely resolve to kill thousands of innocent civilians and themselves in an orchestrated series of attacks. That much is as obvious as the gaping hole where the But remembering my encounter with the Prowler and its crew, I began to wonder: Have we – the One recurring stream of information in the media that has appeared this week is the reconstructed narrative of how the hijackers – particularly the four pilots – traveled from their home countries to Europe, then to Afghanistan, and back to the West as they refined and prepared their suicidal mission. The PBS program, Frontline re-aired on Monday a chilling story, “Inside the Terror Network,” that focused on three of the terrorists, Mohammad Atta, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi – while The Washington Post on Tuesday published an updated profile of the pilot who attacked the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour. In all four cases, there is a common pattern of events, where a seemingly “normal” young Muslim man – and all of them came from middle-class families in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates – came to the West for education but instead of flourishing in the free world, became alienated, self-isolated and consumed with a growing hatred of the environment in which they temporarily lived. Some of the most poignant elements of the Frontline program concerned to comments of family relatives and friends of the young Lebanese student, Ziad Jarrah, brought back from the dead via family home videos to appear as a slender, shyly smiling young man dancing at the wedding of a cousin, and described by several acquaintances as a studious, intelligent person who wanted to study aircraft engineering and to become a pilot himself. But Jarrah and the others do not merit our sorrow. They rushed willingly into the arms of the murderous Islamic ideology that has been spawned by Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants – an ideology that declares there can be no peace between Islam and non-Islam, and a belief structure that recognizes total violence against men, women and children, not for what they do, but for who we are. It was Jarrah, after all, the shy and gangly former student, who was at the controls of United Airlines Flight 93 when Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick and the other brave passengers rushed the cockpit in a counterattack that saved the U.S. Capitol at the cost of their own lives. Ayman Muhammad al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s shadowy No. 2 official, was as clear as the “(1) The need to inflict the maximum casualties against the opponent, for this is the language understood by the West, no matter how much time and effort such operations take. “(2) The need to concentrate on the method of martyrdom operations as the most successful way of inflicting damage against the opponent and the least costly to the mujahiddin in terms of casualties. “(3) The targets as well as the type and method of weapons used must be chosen to have an impact on the structure of the enemy and deter it enough to stop its brutality, arrogance and disregard for all [Islamic] taboos and customs …. Call it information warfare, call it psychiatric assessments, call it profiling, it is imperative that we mobilize all assets available to prevent such stealth terrorists from launching more attacks. To do that, we must first recognize that it is the ideology of al Qaeda that is the actual weapon that this terror network wields against us. The aircraft and GPS receivers and box cutters were merely a means to a deadly end. First and foremost, we need to take the offensive in exposing the ideological flaws of al Qaeda’s ideology (as detailed in separate articles in this issue of DefenseWatch magazine by Robert G. Williscroft and Christian M. Weber). Equally urgent, however, as the federal government continues to search inside the United States and in foreign countries for the hundreds of al Qaeda cells still in hiding, we urgently need to deploy a new system of sensitive receivers – like the antennas on that EA-6B relegated to mail duty – that can successfully locate, identify and track the other terrorists who are still out there. Only then can we neutralize and defeat the enemy who still intends to kill us. Ed Offley is Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at dweditor@yahoo.com. |
| ARTICLE 01 |
Far from By J. David Galland Last week, in the outskirts of Their target was one of the oldest Far from the This time it was, in all likelihood, our new enemy: a plot by sympathizers of the al Qaeda terrorist network to strike on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the Acting on a tip to The accused terrorists, Astrid Eyzaguirre, 23, and Osman Petmezi, 25, remained in custody this week as What is chilling about this last-minute discovery is that Eyzaguirre and Petmezi had legitimate access to materials and Petmezi reportedly works for the Chemische Werke Kluthe GmbH factory, which is a chemical warehouse in the Ms. Eyzaguirre is an American civilian employee of the Heidelberg Class VI store that primarily sells alcoholic beverages and snacks. The store is located on the U.S.-controlled reservation known as the main Post Exchange shopping center about five miles from the main American housing area. Ms. Eyzaguirre’s civilian employee ID card provided her unfettered access to any Details of the alleged plot and its detection have steadily emerged in the six days since their arrest. One German news magazines reported over the weekend that a friend of Eyzaguirre’s informed The following day, police raided the same shopping center where Eyzaguirre worked and arrested two ethnic Albanians employed there. One of the men was also a civilian employee with the U. S. Army and was working as a barber, approximately 300 feet from where Eyzaguirre was employed. The Stars and Stripes military newspaper reported unconfirmed allegations that plans for Campbell Barracks were found in one of the men’s cars. German authorities are evaluating the possibility that the four individuals were part of a terrorist cell operating in Meanwhile, neighbors of the arrested couple told local reporters of several incidents that took place in recent months. Two months ago one neighbor said, a few drops of some liquid dropped on to his head from the balcony of the apartment that Petmezci and Eyzaguirre occupied. The substance was caustic and caused the neighbor to experience severe burning pain. Petmezci apologized, reportedly explaining that he had been using paint thinner to remodel the apartment. This past Sunday, the German newspaper Bild published the findings of a poll indicating that 62 percent of the German public fears a terrorist attack on their soil. The German Interior Minister, Otto Schilly, stated that there is no reason "to lapse into panic" but called for increased vigilance on this first anniversary of the opening volleys of a long war. The terrorism jitters were not limited in As Americans and allies gather today to commemorate the tragic losses of 9/11, our sorrow must be tempered with alertness and resolve. The Islamic terrorist threat remains real and it is not only coming from external forces, as is apparent by events last week in Heidelberg. If there is any lesson to be drawn from last week’s arrests, it is to underscore the criticality of a pro-active defense against terrorism and anti-terror measures in this ongoing war that must be fought with no historical precedent or standard. J. David Galland, Deputy Editor of DefenseWatch, is a retired veteran of over thirty years of service in military intelligence who resides in Germany. He can be reached at defensewatch02@yahoo.com. |
| ARTICLE 02 |
By William F. Sauerwein The message I received from the 9/11 attacks underlined the fact that our federal government officials were derelict in their primary duties – and in the 12 months since that horrific day, they continue to be derelict. Despite a decade of warnings, threats and open attacks, federal agencies trivialized the problem. A decade of decimation has left the U.S. military ill-prepared for meeting its global responsibilities, including the war against terrorism. U.S. intelligence agencies remain hampered by the effects of a decade of budget cuts, misguided legislation and over-reliance on fancy technology. However, national security does not just include military and intelligence issues. It includes many other aspects, also largely ignored by our political leaders, who have done very little in the past year except talk about these problems. Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched the TV news over the past decade will know this dreary list of attacks on the United States and the failure by the Clinton administration to recognize the escalating threat or to take effective action against it: On Feb. 26, 1993, terrorists later linked to Osama bin Laden set off a bomb under the World trade Center, killing six and injuring over 1,000 people; two months later, in April 1993, Saddam Hussein supported an assassination attempt on former President George H.W. Bush during his visit to Kuwait. On Oct. 3-4, 1993, U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force commandos find themselves in a major battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, where they suffer 18 deaths and 84 soldiers wounded fighting Somalis later discovered to have been trained by al Qaeda. Then came the Riyadh compound and Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, respectively, which again killed Americans but sparked no substantial reaction. After our two embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked, almost simultaneously, on Aug. 9, 1998, demonstrating the growing sophistication of al Qadea terrorists, the Clinton administration’s response was to launch a hasty “pinprick” cruise missile attack on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and – mistakenly – a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. One inadvertent “victory” against al Qaeda – the thwarting of the Millennium 2000 plot to bomb sites in the United States, Jordan and Europe – must be credited to the incompetency of the specific terrorists involved. And, of course, things resumed their course the following year with the attack on the destroyer USS Cole in October 2000. We have learned the cruelest confirmation of the consequences of this timidity, of course, from Osama bin Laden himself. Interviewed a month after 9/11 by the al-Jazeera TV network, bin Laden specifically underscored how his network was emboldened by the abrupt U.S. pullout from Somalia following the 1993 battle: “Our brothers with Somali mujahideen and God's power fought the Americans ... America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat and ruin.” Our government leaders are obligated not only to warn us of these threats, but also to protect us from them. We can debate the details of the proper methods for accomplishing this mission, but we cannot ignore the underlying premise. Nor can we ignore the growing evidence that the federal government since 9/11 has done little to learn the lessons from that attack. Following our unprecedented victory in Operation Desert Storm and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we began demobilizing. Defense spending was reduced significantly, and active-duty personnel were reduced by 40 percent. Warrior leaders were shunted aside and perfumed princes rose to the top of the military hierarchy. Social engineering took priority over readiness, and combat training became secondary to humanitarian missions. Our intelligence agencies also suffered from budget cuts, particularly in the human intelligence (HUMINT) area. We relied on satellite imagery, communications intercepts and other high-tech gadgets as replacements for agents on the ground. Legislation further hampered intelligence gathering because they could not use sources of “questionable character.” The most frustrating, and still prominent, problem is the bureaucratic interagency turf battles, which hinders sharing of information. These agencies are our eyes and ears, and without them we cannot devise adequate plans for confronting the threats. The 9/11 attacks also demonstrated our lack of internal security, something well known before the attack. At least two years ago, a television special outlined the inadequacy of airport security, citing not only poorly-trained screeners, but inadequate x-ray machines as well. It seemed the biggest obstacle for overcoming these problems was a lack of funding. Screeners were poorly paid, causing a great turnover in personnel, and better x-ray machines were expensive. It seems we have done little today in solving this problem, except to pay lip service. We made the current screeners federal employees, with higher pay, but seem not to have improved training. When I hear of the weapons that are getting through security, it seems we have not learned. Internal security begins at our borders, and in this our government has failed miserably. This begins with our embassies issuing visas like the express lane in a grocery store. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has failed to keep track of foreigners residing in this country, or apprehend those whose visas have expired – to the degree that the INS will be dismantled under ongoing Homeland Security legislation. The U.S. Border Patrol is undermanned and overwhelmed by the magnitude of its mission, yet a concrete solution still eludes the administration and Congress. Our ports of entry remain vulnerable, and inadequately patrolled for the volume of traffic they handle. News reports continue to warn how little of incoming cargo is inspected – another potential disaster that should have sparked our government into action. Not only the terrorists, but drug dealers, gun smugglers and other criminals as well, continue to exploit our porous borders. Once the terrorists have penetrated our borders we must rely on “homeland defense” agencies. A full year after 9/11, our actual “homeland defense” capability remains a name with no substance, except for a color-coded warning system. Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies still do not effectively communicate, and seem in competition with each other instead. We have many high-profile targets ranging from nuclear reactors to local water supplies that must be secured. Adequately securing these sites requires an unprecedented cooperation between government agencies at all levels. While our politicians go about posturing in front of the cameras and delivering memorials, the reality is something different. While the defense budget and “homeland defense” bills languish in Congress, the politicians vote themselves a pay raise, play election-year politics while our troops risk their lives in Afghanistan (and potentially Iraq), and avoid making the tough decisions that the ongoing terrorist threat mandates. I see very little to celebrate on this one-year anniversary of 9/11. Contributing Editor William F. Sauerwein retired as a first sergeant in 1994 after a 24-year Army infantry career that included combat service in Operation Desert Storm. He can be reached at mono@gtec.com. |
| ARTICLE 03 |
An Obscured Victory: By Andrea West To listen to the American news media talk about the war on terrorism, it would seem that the United States is losing on all fronts. We don't have the benefit of “international opinion” in the form of the European Union’s blessing and the United Nations’ go-ahead. We hear constant leaks from nebulous sources in the Pentagon or the administration that make the entire war look like a no-go. In short, the war picture as seen from our Big Media is one of unrelenting gloom. This view, however, does not give credit for some of our most outstanding achievements in the 12 months since 9/11. For example, in the Sept. 9, 2002 issue of National Review online, columnist Michael Leeden makes an impassioned plea for the United States to come up with a coherent Iran policy. It is my contention that not only has the United States already done so, but that our actions against Iran have given us the most resounding success to date. The first, and most notable, success is the risk factor that is now attached to sponsoring and using terrorist entities in Iran. In response to reminders that terrorist outfits camp out inside its borders, Iran recently made noises about reining in Hezbollah. With the recent attempt on the life of Afghani President Hamid Karzai being blamed on Iran-sponsored assassins, however, Iran is having trouble explaining itself. The incident underscores the country's history of underwriting terrorist groups, and justifies President Bush's inclusion of Iran in the “Axis of Evil.” This is not to say that Iran won't use the threat of terrorist action as a deterrent against us. As Leeden notes, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini has threatened to reply to President Bush's criticism of the theocracy “in the heartland of America.” The threat is very real, as demonstrated by the Karzai assassination attempt. At the same time, the very issuance of the threat indicates that Khameini is feeling the pressure from the president's statement, and is playing the terror card to see if it slows us down. Words are not the only thing that has the Iranian theocracy worried. A number of commentators have pointed out that we have troops in numerous locations in the Middle East, and that this undoubtedly does not sit well with Iran. Iran wants neither a permanent U.S. presence in the region, nor a free Iraq or Afghanistan to bolster U.S. interests in the region and serve as examples to the Iranian people. What only a few people seem to have noticed, however, is that the United States is in a better position to contemplate an invasion of Iran than we are of Iraq. If one examines a map of the region and compares it to a list of the countries in which we are known to have troops, it would seem that Iran, not Iraq, is the country that is actually surrounded by U.S. forces. Doubtless this has not escaped the notice of the Iranians, who may feel obliged to point out the reverse of this equation. The assassination attempt on President Karzai might also have a message for U.S. forces in the region: you may have us surrounded , but that means we have lots of handy places to strike. Unfortunately for the theocracy, it has problems at home that further complicate the situation. These problems create an impression of weakness which erodes Iran's credibility. Popular protests against the regime, most notably the July 9 demonstrations in Tehran, have underlined its unpopularity. The independent intelligence company Stratfor.com rightly points out that the number of protestors involved is not enough to seriously threaten the Iranian regime. What does threaten the mullahs is the fact that the protests took place despite a government decree that there would not be any such thing. According to the independent Iran Press Service on July 16, 2002, these protestors took heart at President Bush's July 12 statements concerning the struggle for freedom and democracy in Iran, in which he condemned the “unelected few [who] repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.” This speech, even more than the president’s “Axis of Evil” description in his State of the Union speech last Jan. 29, has created internal problems for the mullahs. A recent article in National Review claims that “thousands" of Palestinians, Afghans and Arabs were used on July 9 to supplement Iranian security forces against the demonstrations, both in Tehran and in rural areas. Stratfor.com contends that elements of the Iranian security forces have even begun to turn on the regime, with the caveat that these troops may only be unwilling to fire on unarmed citizens. Even so, this represents a credible threat to the stability of the theocracy, since, as Stratfor.com points out, trained and armed security forces are a far cry from unarmed, dissident civilians. With protests mounting at home and the failed assassination attempt against the pro-Western Karzai in Afghanistan, Iran has now turned to the international press in an effort to drag the EU into the argument. Iran hopes that international ambivalence about the war on terror and anti-Americanism in general will encourage the fence-sitters in Europe and elsewhere to take a stand against the United States. So far, at least in the war of words, this scheme has had some measure of success. What has failed to materialize is any form of opposition more concrete than words. In any case, the United States has begun to work on relationships with other nations than the EU. In a recent essay in the British newsmagazine The Spectator, Mark Steyn points out the relationships that the United States is forging with China, Russia, India and the long-neglected Turkey. In addition, the United States is establishing bases and relationships with various Central Asian governments, as well as with other regimes in the Middle East (Turkmenistan and Oman come to mind). These are the alliances that will strengthen our long-term position in the Middle East. One should expect Iran to attempt to disrupt these friendships somewhere in the near future. Iran, in short, is isolated, and the regime is feeling the pressure. The next few months will indicate whether the mullahs will continue a policy of confrontation with the United States, or whether they will try to maintain the self-preserving fiction of hardliners vs. reformers. While time is not on America's side with Iraq, the same does not seem true with Iran in terms of dealing with the United States. Andrea West is DefenseWatch Veterans' Editor. She can be reached at defensewatchvet@yahoo.com. Table of Contents |
| ARTICLE 04 |
Al Qaeda Winning Arab ‘Hearts and Minds’ By Robert G. Williscroft As we remember the horrific events of 9/11 today, it is important to recall Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war against us: “We – with God's help – call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.” “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.” With these words in February 1998, Osama bin Laden and his intellectual and religious mentor, Ayman al Zawahiri, launched global jihad against America and Americans. The obvious immediate question is: Are these the ravings of two madmen out of touch with reality, or do these Fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) command the attention and actions of 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide? Typical of the prevalent attitude is that expressed by Mahfouz Azzam, a prominent Egyptian lawyer. Azzam describes himself as uncle and godfather to Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second-in-command. Azzam sidesteps the issue by saying (as quoted in the Christian Science Monitor), “Ayman al Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden have never confessed that they have committed any crime. I challenge the CIA or anyone to prove that they have confessed. They did say that they were pleased with the events of Sept. 11th because they thought maybe it would shock the U.S. into changing its anti-Islamic policies.” According to Azzam: “Any American civilian who serves against our cause [to liberate Islamic lands] – defends, helps, or pays money against us – should be punished.” Azzam is well educated, completely familiar with the United States and Western ways, and has a better than average understanding of things not Islam. Despite this, his view of America and the West in general is heavily biased towards the dogma emanating from the al Qaeda propaganda machine. In an earlier article, “Target Al Jazeera - 'Information War' Weapon” (DefenseWatch, May 15, 2002), I discussed al Qaeda's preferred weapon, the Al Jazeera television network. Al Jazeera’s CNN-like program lineup has been the primary vehicle for feeding Muslims' desire to know across the world. In recent months Al Jazeera has been reinventing itself to present a broader programming venue to its viewers. The new programs often completely ignore the underlying Al Jazeera message. These programs, which feature interviews and even humor, are in themselves harmless, and may actually result in some positive benefit for the American point of view. But their real intent is to draw an even larger Muslim audience which will then be exposed to a nearly continuous anti-American, anti-Semitic (Jewish), hate-filled agenda. The true colors of Al Jazeera were revealed for the world to see on Sept. 10, 2002, when this al Qaeda propaganda machine aired a celebration of the events of Sept. 11, one year ago. It broadcast excerpts from a tape that it said would be aired completely on Sept. 12. The tape showed four men Al-Jazeera says were among the hijackers during technical training in Afghanistan a few months before the 9/11 attacks. They were looking at detailed maps, including the Washington, D.C. area, and manuals of cockpit gadgetry. Nearby desks contained at least one computer and several books in English, and a hand pointed at the site of the Pentagon on one map. The men wore loose shirts and baggy pants in typical south Asian style. Their faces remained concealed. Speaking over men singing Muslim hymns, a male voice sounding much like Osama bin Laden spoke in Arabic as the tape showed head shots of the 19 who hijacked the planes: “As we talk about the conquests of Washington and New York we talk about those men who changed the course of history and cleaned the records of the nation of the dirt of the treasonous rulers and their followers.” Later, the voice said the 19 hijackers were “great men who deepened the roots of faith in the hearts of the faithful and reaffirmed allegiance to Allah and torpedoed the schemes of the crusaders and their stooges, the rulers of the region.” The speaker named four men – Mohammed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Hani Hajour and Ziad Jarrah – as the leaders of the 9/11 attacks in the United States, prayed for their souls, and praised them. Fully 80 percent of all Muslims worldwide with access to television regularly watch Al Jazeera, and certainly saw this broadcast. That is over half a billion people who received this dose of hatred. This same half billion are regularly admonished by Al Jazeera guests “to kill the Americans and their allies” in a hundred different ways every single day. Islamic terror groups now include: al Qaeda (international), Hamas (Palestine), Islamic Jihad (Palestine), Al-Aska Martyrs Brigade (Palestine), Hezbollah (Palestine), Jamaat al-Islammiyya (Egypt), Armed Islamic Group (GIA) (Algeria), Kashmir Militant Extremists (Kashmir), Abu Nidal Organization (Iraq), Chechnya-based Terrorists (Chechnya), Abu Sayyaf Group (Phillipines), and possibly others around the world. Al Jazeera presents the members of these terrorist organizations either as unabashed heroes, or at least as devout Muslim freedom fighters. America and Israel are the primary designated terrorist organizations in these broadcasts. Al Jazeera commentators offer as proof, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the starvation and medical shortcomings of some of the Iraqi people, and the daily plight of the Palestinians. Pearl Harbor receives no mention; the oil-for food program in Iraq strongly supported by the United States is ignored; and the continuing efforts of U.S. diplomats to broker a Mideast peace is ridiculed as two-faced and designed to topple Arafat. The bottom line is that over half a billion Muslims receive a daily dose of twisted propaganda that they firmly believe to be true and accurate. In my DefenseWatch article on Apr. 3, 2002 (“Bid the Little Ones Come Unto Me - Forbid Them Not”), I introduced readers to a 15-year-old Arab youth living in London. I shared my month-long email exchange with this lad, in order to demonstrate the success that al Qaeda and its propaganda unit, Al Jazeera, have experienced during the last year. This lad had no concept of the world as it really is, but was fluent in regurgitating the Al Jazeera lies and distortions. Across the Muslim world, virtually all Muslims believe America is the Great Satan, and that it must be destroyed, no matter the cost. This is not just an opinion. Anyone with the desire and resources can search the Internet and discover the extent of this “market penetration.” Before and during World War II, the Nazis never came close to this kind of successful propaganda. Stalin and his follow-on minions could only dream of such effective molding of minds. Even the Roman Catholic Church cannot match this kind of world-wide mind control. When Rome has come up against incontrovertible fact, thinking Catholics have invariably changed the church. In the world of Islam, however, the church changes thinking Muslims – or kills them if they refuse to change, since increasingly disagreement with the prevailing thought pattern is interpreted as an apostate offense, punishable by death. America's allies in Europe and elsewhere are backing away from their support of our war on terror. Increasingly, America is being presented as a bully flexing its muscles, instead of as an aggrieved party seeking justice. An increasing number of world leaders is looking to America as the underlying cause of terrorism. We are increasingly seen as immoral in our business and diplomatic dealings, unethical in our support of governments opposed by al Qaeda, duplicitous in our support of Israel, and evil in our desire to depose Saddam Hussein. America hasn't a single apologist in the Arab world. Even Jordan and Egypt are sliding towards the prevailing mind-set. We are not losing the propaganda war – we have already lost it. Were America to shut down Al Jazeera permanently, and to substitute reality for its lies and misrepresentations, we might stem the tide, but there is little chance that we can change what has already happened. The anti-American Jihad is a juggernaut that we cannot avoid. It's time to remove our collective heads from the sand and see reality as it is. As we contemplate 9/11 and remember the thousands of American innocents killed around the world by these monsters, let's acknowledge that we have lost the information war, and make damn sure we don't lose the ground war as well. Robert G. Williscroft is DefenseWatch Navy Editor. He can be reached at dwnavyeditor@argee.net. |
| ARTICLE 05 |
| The Koranic Case against Osama bin Laden By Christian M. Weber The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Saddam Hussein's imminent march towards Saudi Arabia 12 years ago brought a mighty U.S. military presence to the Arab Holy Land, an action which allegedly enraged Osama bin Laden and spurred his hatred of his former ally. In his eyes, as the story goes, the landing of “infidels” in the land of the Prophet was a desecration to the Holy Land and a flagrant abuse of the House of Saud's stewardship of Mecca and Medina, that was beyond dismissal. Empowering himself with the ability to issues religious rulings, fatwas, he urged Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Somalia in 1996 and, again in 1998 called for attacks on American civilians. Donning the mantel of defender of the “faith,” akin to Islamic hero Saladin's title, “Defeater of the Crusades,” he launched the terrorist umbrella organization, the International Islamic Front for Jihad against Crusaders and Jews. Yet unlike the noble Saladin, bin Laden has failed to follow even the most basic tenets of Islam. Firstly, the Koran clearly states that the practice of suicide attacks, particularly the vile brand exercised on 9/11, is profoundly against the teachings of Islam. According to Islamic law, martyrdom excludes death by ones own hand (suicide), and is only achieved through death in battle at the hands of ones enemy. Suicide is strictly forbidden in the Islamic faith and harshly punished: “He who killed himself with steel would be the eternal denizen of the Fire of Hell … he who drank poison and killed himself would sip that in the Fire of Hell where he is doomed for ever and … he who killed himself by falling from a mountain would constantly fall in the Fire of Hell.... ” (Sahih Muslim, 48:1: 0199). As the 9/11 hijackers are undoubtedly learning, the phase “Fire of Hell” is not interchangeable with the promised “seventy two virgins.” Legitimate fatwas by Shaykhs ibn Baaz, ibn Jabreen, and ibn Uthaymeen further reinforce the prohibition against suicide attacks and the hijacking of civilians. Secondly, Islam prohibits Muslims from partaking of illicit drugs, referred to in the Quran as “abominations and the work of Satan” (5:90). Yet, The Golden Crescent countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan, bin Laden's lair of choice, are the world's largest producers of heroin, growing in excess of $50 billion in street value annually. Furthermore, The al Qaeda-Taliban regime actually formalized the revenue-generating aspect of opium production by imposing a ten percent zakat (tax) on all opium transactions. Let us not forget bin Laden's chummy relationship with the late Somalia warlord and close al Qaeda ally, Gen. Mohamed Farah Aideed, who not only handed out the cocaine-like herb, khat, to his troops, but violated one of the five holy Pillars of Islam (Concern for and almsgiving to the needy) by withholding food shipments to starving Muslims. Thirdly, and even more damning for bin Laden, is his regular dealings with communist China. Islamic extremists view the world in two distinct spheres, Dar al Islam (the abode of faith) and Dar al Harb (the abode of war). China clearly falls into the sphere of Dar al Harb, particularly in light of Beijing’s active and severe persecution of the Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province, a great many of whom served as mujhadeen during the Soviet Afghan War. Osama bin Laden ignored the plight of his former Uighur brothers-in-arms and pursued extensive dealing with the Chinese government. The al Qaeda-Taliban regime overtly maintained ties with Beijing and paid China's Huawei Technologies to develop a limited telephone exchange in Kabul and Kandahar. A Libyan national who served as a liaison officer for al Qaeda elements in Italy went so far as to characterize the relationship between bin Laden and the Chinese, as “He [Bin Laden] works a great deal with China. He's got good relations with them.” Bin laden has shown time and again flagrant disregard for Islamic law, and exhibited a willingness to work not only with drug dealers, but the persecutors of fellow Muslims. One must then wonder why this pillar of hypocrisy espouses such venom towards America. Despite his abundant inherited wealth and business successes, bin Laden is a frail, gangly man wracked with poor health. His greatest triumphs in life have come, not on the battlefield (though his leg wound during the war has given rise to the warrior bin Laden myth), but from his financial association with the mujhadeen during the Soviet-Afghan War. He is clearly representative of those misfits of society whose only sense of significance comes from the attention garnered by perpetrating acts of self-aggrandizement. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait brought the opportunity for bin Laden to raise an army of mujhadeen to cast out a despised enemy and defend the Holy Land. Moreover, it brought the promise of leading an army of mujhadeen on the very sands once ruled by the Prophet Muhammad. The defeat of Iraq at the hands of bin Laden would have made him a hero as renowned as Saladin in the eyes of his countrymen. Such a victory would undoubtedly be a precursor to his mujhadeen unseating the House of Saud and creating an Islamic Caliphate as existed under Muhammad, with himself as caliph. But the U.S. military success in Desert Storm vanquished bin Laden's hoped-for stardom and triggered his cataclysmic desire to destroy the United States. While there is no discounting that the strong American presence in the Holy Land, coupled with Saudi Arabia financing of Desert Storm, rankled devout Muslims, it was largely the derailment of his personal aspirations that spurred bin Laden’s hatred of America. Piety is clearly a cloak that bin Laden has loosely donned merely to mask his ambition and rally disciples to his banner. At some point, probably sooner for the miscreants in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and later for the rest of the Muslim world, they are going to see that this fiend is no warrior, no holy man, and certainly no Saladin. It should be a major tactic of the U.S. war against terrorism to forcefully present this case to the Muslim world. Contributing Editor Christian M. Weber is a 1st lieutenant specializing in military intelligence in the New York Guard, Civil and Military Affairs Division. He can be reached at LtWeberNYG@aol.com. |
| ARTICLE 06 |
Battle over Homeland Security Is Just Beginning By Jim Simpson The Bush administration plan for creating a new Homeland Security Department has been called a tactically shrewd political move – having stolen the Democrats’ thunder with a sweeping new idea. The proposal to keep the department non-union is politically bold and crucial to its mission. The plan also attempts to address interagency rivalry issues that have plagued law enforcement for years. Finally, it may instill a sense of “mission” in its employees that comes with starting fresh on a new and noble endeavor. However, in integrating disparate and often competing institutional cultures and jurisdictional boundaries, as well as carrying out the huge technical job of merging all these bureaucracies together, an already overburdened federal security establishment will face a host of new challenges. The need to hire new people quickly and merge many sources of intelligence will also increase the likelihood of leaks and penetration by enemy agents. Finally, even if these huge logistical problems are solved, they will all be for naught if the American people themselves fail to quickly overcome some deeply ingrained habits and misconceptions that remain a deadly threat to our collective security. The federal law enforcement establishment on 9/11 was a conglomeration of over 70 agencies, each having statutory authority to enforce a limited subset of federal laws. A year later, it still is. For example, the U.S. Customs Service enforces laws regarding movement of merchandise across our borders. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) enforces laws relating to movement of people across our borders. The Coast Guard enforces laws regarding movement of people and merchandise on the sea. The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) shares jurisdiction with Customs on laws regarding export of dual use or military technology. Customs is in the Treasury Department while INS is under the Justice Department. Coast Guard is part of the Department of Transportation (except in wartime when it shifts to the Navy Department), and the BXA is part of the Commerce Department. The list goes on ad infinitum. In short: everybody gets into the act. But each does so in its own unique way and as a result of the explicit authority granted them by Congress. These prerogatives are guarded jealously and when there is overlapping authority wasteful turf battles ensue. As a budget analyst for the White House Office of Management and Budget in the early 1990s, I reviewed activities of Treasury law enforcement agencies, i.e. Customs, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Secret Service and others. I would estimate that at least 50 percent of my time was spent trying to fathom and resolve turf issues that arose between Treasury (who referred to themselves as the government’s oldest law enforcement agency) and Justice (who constantly reminded us they were the government’s foremost law enforcement agency). These interagency disputes, which sometimes reach the height of absurdity, are the reason agency consolidation plans have been proposed on and off for at least 30 years. As an administrative matter alone, such a consolidation is difficult enough. The complexity and breadth of federal laws does not go away just because you consolidate the agencies tasked to enforce them. But then Congress gets involved and the problem increases exponentially. Needless to say, each time the proposals have been shelved. Appropriations and authorization committee members use agencies under their purview as vehicles for their personal agendas and guard their prerogatives more jealously than the agencies – if that is possible. Constituent groups develop with a vested interest in the agencies’ budget and statutory authority and with it an interest in the committee members’ political fortunes. This is not altogether inappropriate: Those with a vested interest in agency activities should get involved. Freight forwarders, for example, are in a good position to inform Congress how a new proposed border security system will affect movement of goods across the border. But it is when committee members put the desires of their constituents above all else that problems arise. And that unfortunately, is still happening, a full year after 9/11. Since the Bush proposal was unveiled, opponents in Congress have raised various objections – most notably the Democratic effort to force unionization on the agency – that may be the beginning of a campaign to kill the Homeland Security Department plan entirely. No one would dare challenge the president’s idea directly, given the sensitivity of the issue. Instead opponents are likely to pursue a strategy of “death by a thousand cuts,” raising first one objection, then another, then another, until the public loses interest. But perhaps this is one time in our history where circumstances will conspire to achieve the near-impossible. A more likely danger is that even if the legislation passes – given current politics – we will still get a Department of Homeland Security that has been watered down to toothless ineffectiveness, but big and juicy enough to give congressional appropriators lots of excuses for new spending. This is exactly what we need to avoid. The issue of employee unionization in the new department is a case in point. Bush should be congratulated for having the insight and the courage to propose a non-union Homeland Security Department. Given the proposed law enforcement and intelligence functions, it is crucial for the government to retain flexibility in management, hiring and firing. One bad apple can compromise an investigation and sometimes cost lives. In the case of intelligence activities, a turned agent often costs lives and can threaten our national security. At best, ineffective or subpar agents would compromise critical national security functions. Federal employee unions have gained so much power that agency managers have virtually no authority to fire or otherwise discipline employees. Those who attempt to do so can face endless legal challenges and/or career threatening discrimination or sexual harassment charges and the like. Union rules on simple day-to-day work routines are arduously complex and restrictive. Most managers just resign themselves to living with the problem. Despite these well-known facts, most Democrats have tied their political fortunes inexorably to the unions and so will probably choose politics over national security by insisting on unionization. Even without the unions, there is little incentive for good management. Federal managers are also difficult to fire, especially those who ingratiate themselves to congressional committees. Political agency heads, fearing negative publicity or a fight with congressional opponents, don’t bother. Good managers or conscientious agency heads face similar risks in trying to resolve institutional problems. To identify a problem risks being accused of creating it. Congressional oversight committees lunge at the opportunity for grand-stand hearings, despite the fact that in many circumstances, it is the activities and edicts of congressional and administration policy makers that caused the problem in the first place. For example, Notra Trulock, the Energy Department’s intelligence chief during the Clinton administration, suffered relentless grilling in Senate hearings for daring to highlight the horrendous security hemorrhage at Los Alamos National Laboratory during the tenure of Secretary Hazel O’Leary. Senators publicly accused him of lying, though I doubt anyone on that committee seriously questioned the veracity of his testimony. That national interest would be subordinated to the political image of the president in even such an egregious case, did not come as a surprise. In such a working environment, a form of “Gresham’s Law” takes hold, where the bad and the incompetent employees drive out the good and the dedicated. Smart people stay away, courageous people leave, and fools stay on. For example, during informal discussions one day, Secret Service headquarters agents confided to us with a hint of pride that they probably contributed to warming relations between the U.S. government and Russia during the period of Mikhail Gorbachev’s “Glasnost.” “Why?” I queried. Because they explained, they had cozied up to the KGB and shared with them their methods for protecting the president. Shocked to speechlessness, I saw no point in observing that unlike America, the ruthlessly effective KGB has never lost a Soviet leader to assassination (unless the KGB planned it) and it is highly doubtful they would need our “help.” But now, thanks to naively enthusiastic Secret Service bureaucrats, our potentially greatest adversary now fully understood how we protect our chief executive. Mind-boggling, but true! Horror stories like these abound. So while employees of the new agency may be initially filled with a sense of excitement and mission, this will quickly be replaced with the futility and demoralization felt by agents of the FBI, CIA and others, whose conscientious efforts have been repeatedly met with indifference, hostility and outright resistance. The examples are legion, and by this point, well known. They do not bear further repetition. What they all reflect is not an FBI riddled with incompetent managers (though it may be); not a CIA hidebound to bureaucratic prerogatives (though it may be); not an NSA overconfident of its SIGINT capability (though it may be); not a State Department riddled with traitors and spies (though it may be). What they do reflect is a crisis in political leadership. The American people cannot afford to continue tolerating those in power who would enrich and empower themselves at the expense of our security and even survival. In the wake of 9/11, the stakes could not be higher. The Bush proposal for homeland defense accurately observes that in our open society, all energy, transportation and production infrastructures are very vulnerable to attack. So are our leaders. One or two well-placed suitcase nukes could effectively decapitate our leadership structure and throw the entire country into chaos. Such a scenario would leave us virtually defenseless. Who is smug enough to think that such a scenario might not embolden opportunistic adversaries to engage in nuclear blackmail or even launch an attack? The Homeland Security Department debate illuminates a deeper crisis in national political leadership that must be resolved. It is astounding to me that some people still just don’t get it. Contributing Editor Jim Simpson, a former White House budget analyst, is a widely published commentator on military and security issues. He can be reached at one.wonders@verizon.net. |
| ARTICLE 07 |
Congress’ Fundamental Failure in This War By Winslow T. Wheeler The United States has experienced both successes and failures since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One of the most fundamental failures has been the performance of Congress in response to the basic requirements of war and our system of government. Wartime requires special attention to the life-and-death needs of the U.S. armed forces in combat, and Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says, “Congress shall have power to … provide for the common defense … raise and support armies … provide and maintain a navy” and more. Rather than meeting these requirements, the 100 members of the U.S. Senate have exploited the war against terrorism and have actually degraded the welfare of troops in the field to conduct self-promoting pork-barrel raids on the Pentagon budget. This past July 31, when the Senate passed its fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Daniel Inouye, D-HI, said, “This is the largest [defense] spending bill the Senate has ever considered. It is $35 billion more than was approved for FY 2002 and nearly $700 million more than recommended by the House [of Representatives] last month.” The top-ranking Republican of the Defense Subcommittee, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK, added that the bill provided an “unprecedented level of funding for current training and operations.” Pretty good, right? The largest defense spending bill ever. Bigger even than was passed for any year during World War II, Korea or Vietnam. Wow! What better support could there for troops in the field risking their lives, separated from their loved ones thousands of miles away from home in ungodly places like Afghanistan, the Philippines, the Persian Gulf, and – maybe soon for better or for worse – the deserts and cities of Iraq. Thank God there are patriots like Dan Inouye and Ted Stevens and the other 93 senators who voted for the $355 billion DoD appropriations bill. Same thing for the other parts of the defense budget – military construction, nuclear weapons and other parts – bringing it all to a grand total of $393 billion. Right? Not exactly. As usual, the politicians are cooking the numbers to make themselves look good. According to the Defense Department’s own budget records, in dollars adjusted for inflation, defense spending was at $595 billion in 1945 at the end of World War II. In 1951, Congress appropriated $509 billion for Korea, and at the height of Vietnam in 1968, spent $425 billion. Hell, even the peacetime Pentagon budget in 1985, again, adjusted for inflation, stood at $461 billion in 2002 dollars. Even a casual glance will affirm that each of these figures significantly outmatches the $393 billion Congress has approved for 2003. To make believe their 2003 defense budget is bigger than the others, Inouye and Stevens are pretending inflation never existed. For example, back in World War II, dollars bought a lot more; the 1945 defense budget came to just $34 billion in those older – more powerful – dollars. An apples-to-apples comparison that converts those 1945 dollars to ones with the same value the dollar holds today puts the purchasing power of the 1945 budget about $200 billion above what Inouye calls “the largest spending bill the Senate has ever considered.” But so what? The 2003 defense budget is still huge. According to some analysts, it is equal to the next eight biggest defense budgets of foreign nations; others say fifteen; some even say the rest of the world. The figure of $393 billion ain’t peanuts, and surely it’s enough to not just support the troops in the field but to give them everything they could ever want and need, right? It even says right here on page four of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Report on its defense bill that “The primary goals of this bill are to ensure readiness and fair treatment of our men and women in uniform.” That must mean that huge amounts are being spent on supporting the war and the troops fighting it, right? The senators must have really piled it on for ammunition, weapons maintenance, spare parts, training and other things the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines need to have every possible advantage against al Qaeda and other opponents. Here’s a few examples of what senators did in this latest defense appropriations bill to help our forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere: * Sen. John Warner, R-VA, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, spent $5 million for a new road, near but not actually on Fort Belvoir in northern Virginia; * Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, another member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spent $5 million on the D-Day museum in New Orleans; * Senator Susan Collins, R-ME, still another member on Armed Services, spent $4 million to convert a “Naval Security Group” facility in Winter Harbor, Me., to a civilian research and education center for Acadia National Park; * The aforementioned Sen. Stevens spent $8 million to realign railroad track on Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson, Alaska; * Not to be outdone, Chairman Inouye cued up $22 million in military funds for the “Hawaii Federal Health Care Network” and $950,000 for the “Institute for Tribal Government.” * Acting as a team, Inouye and Stevens together also added $30.6 million to cover cost overruns for a C-40 VIP transport plane they had earlier arranged. (Take a wild guess on who gets to ride in these.) If you think that’s all, you need to have a seat. There are hundreds of additions like these throughout the defense appropriations bill. And, that’s not even the worst part. Not only did the senators add all kinds of garbage to the bill, they paid for huge slices of it by cutting spending for actual military readiness. Hidden in the back of the bill are half a dozen sections that reduce spending in the Pentagon budget’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account; that critical section pays for training, weapons maintenance, base repairs, exercises, spare parts, and – of course – combat operations. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the White House Office of Management and Budget, the legislation took over $1 billion in cuts or phony savings out of O&M. And, just so the green eyeshades in DoD won’t get confused, the Appropriations Committee – as it usually does – are leaving explicit instructions that “congressional items” – i.e. the junk they added – are never to be reduced by DoD without specific permission from Congress. Now, guess what parts they leave unprotected for their cuts and phony savings to bite into. The U.S. Constitution imposes a responsibility on Congress “to raise and support armies” and to “provide and maintain a navy.” Senators are presenting an illusion of doing so by appropriating huge amounts in defense bills. What they are, in fact, doing is lacing defense legislation with pork for their home states, which they then broadcast to the voters back home to show how much they care for the local economy. Meanwhile, in Washington, they pose as broad-minded, national patriots with nothing but “readiness and fair treatment of our men and women in uniform” as their “primary goals.” While the vast majority of senators are active participants in this tawdry game, a few more clever ones pose themselves as anti-pork reformers. However, when the time comes to take real actions to slow down the pork parade, these self-described “pork busters” are nowhere to be found. What is presented by all 100 senators as a huge and generous defense budget is, in fact, a huge re-election campaign treasury for self-interested politicians. It’s not support for the troops as never before; it’s self-promotion – at the expense of the troops – as never before. The solution is not to increase the defense budget even more. We’ve been doing that for several years now, and the result has been less-ready forces, an aging, shrinking weapons inventory, and ever greater vacuity in Congress. President Ronald Reagan said of negotiating with the old, communist Soviet Union, “Trust, but verify.” With this batch of U.S. senators manipulating critical defense dollars in a time of war, it’s better for all of us, as we monitor the workings of Congress, to “Trust nobody; verify everything.” Wheeler joined the nonprofit Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C., this year as a senior analyst after working for 30 years as a senior defense aide in Congress and for the General Accounting Office. He resigned his congressional position as a result of publicity over an article he wrote, “A Portrait of Congress in Wartime: Mr. Smith Is Dead,” an edit version of which appeared in DefenseWatch and other websites. Feedback messages can be sent to him at dwfeedback@yahoo.com. |
| ARTICLE 8 |
Don’t Ignore Health Risks of a Gulf War II By Robert L. McMahon Before President Bush orders our warriors into Gulf War II against In a recent letter to VA Secretary Anthony Principii, Michael Woods, president of The National Gulf War Resource Center Inc., formally accused the VA of being in open violation of federal law for being five months’ delinquent in releasing up-to-date “death and disability” statistics on Gulf War I veterans. This has never happened before. If we are to fight again, surely we are entitled to know the facts about what happened last time. So why is the VA dragging its feet now? Woods is concerned that the VA is stalling because the dismal casualty statistics of Gulf War I could undermine the case made by the President, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and the group of Republican hawks pressing for a “regime change” invasion of Iraq. Most Americans agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace to the The numbers to date on Gulf War I illnesses are staggering: More than 697,000 Of these veterans, there are 70,000 who are claiming injury from undiagnosed conditions resulting from possible toxic exposures. Before you jump to conclusions that all these veterans are nothing more than whining “generation X” losers, let's look at the list of the toxins our Gulf War veterans endured during Gulf War I, according to The National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.. Main Types of Toxic Exposures:
(Source: The National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.) The Pentagon denied that troops were exposed to chemical warfare agents (Row A) for five years, despite the growing number of sickened veterans. And it's not that Saddam Hussein even fired them at us. Our own troops destroyed an Iraqi arms depot that contained them, inadvertently exposing troops to the chemicals in the world's largest friendly-fire incident on record. The vast exposure to Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions (Row D) is another major cause for alarm. The Pentagon didn't acknowledge the widespread exposure to DU toxins till 1998. Government health experts now concede that exposure to as little as .01 gm in a week can cause health problems. In Gulf War I, we used over 640,000 pounds of DU munitions – for a cumulative total of 300 million gram-equivalent exposures! Before the Bush administration proceeds to commit the younger brothers and sisters of GWI to fight GWII, we should have a full airing of these massive health issues. If the Pentagon and the VA, either through incompetence or hubris, have not dealt honestly and effectively with our casualties from Gulf War I, are we ready to callously toss more of our troops and veterans onto this poisonous environment? Years from now I don't want to see books about “The Gulf War Generation” exposing how we betrayed veterans – twice – by exposing them to a toxic battlefield that created vast numbers of illness and even death. The president, his secretary of defense and the VA all need to place on the record exactly what caused the enormous numbers of medical casualties in Gulf War I and what is being done, in light of that experience, to reduce the hazards our troops would face in Gulf War II. McMahon is president of Soldiers for The Truth Foundation, which publishes DefenseWatch magazine. He can be reached at rmcmahon1@rcn.com. |
| ARTICLE 9 |
Reservists: A Year of Plummeting Morale By Paul Connors If there is one thing that leaders in the U.S. military’s active component are correct about (and always have been) when they talk about the National Guard – and to a lesser extent, the reserves – is that there is far too much “politics” in the way local units are run. From cronyism, nepotism, corruption and retaliation against people who speak up, the Guard and reserves have earned the enmity of many of their own members. Since the beginning of the war on terror immediately after 9/11, when the various services began wholesale call-ups of Guard and reserve units, the vast majority of the individuals who comprise these units have unfalteringly stepped forward and performed with professionalism, patriotism and enthusiasm as they embraced the mission - protecting the homeland. In response, too many of these dedicated people have suffered from poor leadership and unfair personnel policies that have caused them personal stress and financial suffering. The past 12 months, for them, have been a year of plummeting morale. Initially, the Air Force issued a general “stop-loss” order that prevented almost every member from leaving the service. That order included people who had previously established retirement dates as well as those whose obligated service had ended and who had decided to leave the military. The order trickled down to the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard as well. Over time, as the Air Force began to unclog its personnel management system, stop-loss has been lifted from almost every career field. However, a few remained and the irony is, most of the personnel affected are members of the ANG and Air Force Reserve Command. While the active Air Force finally permitted its security forces personnel to separate and retire, the Secretary of the Air Force announced that approximately 14,000 reserve component personnel will be involuntarily retained on active duty for another year. Many of these reserve component security forces personnel have served continuously since 9/11 while others have deployed to CONUS bases and overseas to support the active-duty mission. Over the last several months, a number of security personnel have written to DefenseWatch magazine, and the general tone of these letters and Feedback emails depicts a significant decline in morale – especially those who left home to backfill active-duty units at stateside bases from which the regular Air Force security forces did not deploy. One of the significant recurring comments was that ANG and AFRC security forces personnel have been called in to backfill at bases where active duty members are now permitted to separate or retire. Additionally, active duty personnel are working normal workdays, while ANG and AFRC members are working 12-14-hour days with little respite. Worse, active-duty base commanders have made almost no effort to utilize security augmentees, and non-security personnel have gone about their everyday work schedules as if 9/11 never happened. At many ANG and AFRC bases where security forces have deployed, non-security forces trained personnel have voluntarily stepped in to guard base personnel, facilities and assets while their security troops are employed elsewhere. These are usually traditional Guardsmen and reservists with families and civilian careers that they have placed on the back burner to help their units complete the mission. The same is true for most security forces personnel. Most are part-timers with lives outside the gate. Many of these same people are law enforcement professionals in civilian lives, and their call-ups have placed additional stress on many local police departments that in turn must backfill to make up for the lost officers now on active duty. For some police departments such as in New York, Los Angeles or Chicago, where thousands of officers are on the payroll, a few call-ups here and there are more readily absorbed. This is not the case for smaller departments with rosters of only 10-15 police officers, where loss of one or two members to an activation has a serious impact on those remaining behind. After almost a year of active duty, and with no end in sight, ANG and AFRC security forces personnel have started to question the need for their continued presence on active duty, whether it be at home station, somewhere else in CONUS or overseas. Some have gone so far as to question why the active component Security Forces haven't deployed more and why active-duty bases don't make more widespread use of augmentees. Some have suggested that fence-line patrols be conducted by Army mechanized infantry or cavalry units that have the training and equipment to provide that type of force protection. After all, Air Force security forces are the Air Force's “light infantry,” especially when carrying out their base ground-defense role. Security personnel who have personally contacted DefenseWatch magazine have also revealed instances where individuals within ANG and AFRC units have been retaliated against for questioning the continuing need for extended active duty, especially at bases where they guard only empty ramps because the unit's aircraft have been deployed elsewhere. In one ANG security forces squadron, there hasn't been a re-enlistment or voluntary extension since March of this year. Every member scheduled to separate or retire was involuntarily extended. To add insult to injury, these same members have often had to suffer both the additional hardships created by loss of civilian incomes, which are generally larger, and the attendant pay problems that often arise with the call-ups of Guard and reserve personnel. One member of a Guard unit revealed to this writer that he received only base pay and has yet to see his basic allowance for housing. His bank doesn't seem to care: It wants to know when he'll catch up on his mortgage payments. So much for the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act. Then there are the local unit commanders who volunteer their units for more and more missions without giving due and proper consideration to the people who have to continue to sacrifice while active-duty personnel leave the service at the first available opportunity. These same officers, many seeking to enhance their own promotional and career opportunities, seem clueless that their enlisted personnel are suffering large personal hardships for missions of questionable value and need. When one or two speak up, they then suffer harassment, poor assignments, loss of promotions and even less-desirable deployments. This is a system that had its beginnings in the wholesale force reductions that started with the President George H.W. Bush and continued with a vengeance under the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, these reductions will continue under the current administration, where Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld apparently has decided that all these people cost money and if they dump people, they can then buy all the smart weapons they want to kill our enemies. Left unaddressed is the issue of what the Pentagon can or will do to lessen the crushing workload on those who remain after it slices and dices what's left of our armed forces. From what we at DefenseWatch have been hearing and reading, the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard will soon be facing a retention crisis of almost monumental proportions. While security forces people – as just one example – have been the most vocal in their cries for assistance and criticisms of poorly-planned and executed activations and deployments, other career fields will soon feel the heat as well. There are just so many times people can be up-rooted from their families and civilian careers. There is just so much that employers will put up with when they continue to lose the same people over and over again for ill-conceived missions. But for unit commanders to doubt the patriotism and honor of people who question the events that affect their personal lives, is the epitome of institutional arrogance and hubris. The same members who are seeing their concerns go unanswered or who are bullied and harassed are the same people the Guard and reserve have counted on to re-enlist. It is this group of people who will leave at the first opportunity. The commanders of these units need to carry out their assigned missions, but they also need to consider the lives of the people asked to make all of that possible. The Air Force desperately needs to fix its broken personnel management system so that AFRC and ANG units are not abused so that active duty people can ETS or retire. Commanders who retaliate need to be relieved immediately, as soon as Inspectors General verify the abuses. And Secretary Rumsfeld and his leadership team really needs to re-think additional large-scale force cuts, because those in the field will confirm that the U.S. military today is dangerously overstretched as it is. Anti-war activists during the Vietnam era had a saying, “Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came?” It is not unpatriotic to warn that this well may be the unhappy legacy of those responsible for creating the unprecedented morale crisis now undermining the integrity of the reserve component. Paul Connors is DefenseWatch Air Force Editor. He can be reached at paulconnors@hotmail.com. © 2002 Paul Connors. |
| ARTICLE 10 |
One Small Reason to Celebrate By Patrick Hayes If necessity is the mother of invention, then war is the father. Some of history’s most significant discoveries, inventions and feats of personal courage have occurred due to the demands of the battlefield, not the least of which are personal courage, patriotism and standing up for an ideal, rather than cowering to the politically-correct motives of the vociferous few. In a country unlike any other, a country that offers virtually anything anyone would want, within a couple of generations the United States has seen the “can-do” attitude of the Great Depression era generation turn into the attitude of inability to do anything, of excuses and apologies – an environment in which anything goes because there are so very few restrictions. So, why not kick back and let someone else do the dirty work? Isn’t that why so many illegal workers have been allowed into the country over the past 50 years or so with a wink and a nod – because too many Americans no longer want to get their hands dirty? The “1960s generation” that we consistently hear about from Hollywood and the news media are actually a small subgroup – the white, middle-class former hippie, draft-card-burning college students who are now nearing retirement, and the bankers, politicians, businessmen, professors and journalists who didn’t want to get their hands dirty in Vietnam. It is a group whose view of the world of today is as myopic and self-righteous as it was in 1968. The element of the 1960s generation rarely heard about, unless related to criminal activity or psychotic behavior, are those silent few who actually served their country in Vietnam, as their fathers had served a generation before against Germany, Italy and Japan, and who got their hands dirty doing it, were wounded in battle, or were killed. They served without complaint, without crying foul, and without excuses as to why they should be doing something else – in Canada! Since former Revolutionary War hero Benedict Arnold, turned on his country and went to fight for the British, the line of traitors in American history has continued. Some in trusted positions, such as former FBI counter-espionage agent, Robert Hanssen, who sought financial reward and thought he was smarter than his peers. Others, like Johnny “bin” Walker Lindh, or Timothy McVeigh, who are mindless idiots waiting for someone to fill their heads with mush, are looking for kicks, a new way to “express” themselves, or to “act out” against a father figure. Or, in Walker Lindh’s case, the lack of a father figure. Before 9/11, high school kids were, for the most part, attracted to the U.S. military because of the easy benefits and skills training offered by recruiters. The Clintonesque politically-correct military of the 1990s (with the notable exception of the Marine Corps) also offered a friendly, non-aggressive environment where young men and women out of high school could still “do their own thing” without being hassled too much. At 0845 (ET), on Sept. 11, 2001, that attitude changed – somewhat. Unlike the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, there were no lines outside recruiting offices after 9/11. Most Americans, in shock and licking their perceived or psychological wounds, were unsure of what to do. Young people in particular, whose most formidable experience before 9/11 had been seeking out the right parking spot, or being first in line for a new video game, movie, or music CD, didn’t have a clue about what had happened, what national sovereignty meant, who Osama bin Laden or Muslim terrorists were, and what could or should be done in response to the horror. They were unsure because they were, for the most part, the children of the previous decade – the decade of the Clinton administration – which, besides arbitrarily lying and misleading the country in a variety of false causes to cover domestic problems, had been sending young Americans to dead-end streets around the globe to become bogged down and maybe killed in no-win altercations with unidentified enemies, objectives, and with no end or exit strategy in sight. After the carnage, however, there were still a few young people who actually enlisted, or became officers, because they had been brought up by knowledgeable and patriotic parents to believe in their country’s ideals, what their country stands for and that serving their country was the greatest act of unselfish patriotism, honor and opportunity a young man or woman could perform. While the left-wing “intelligentsia,” who now control Berkeley, Harvard, USC and many other campuses across the United States, and occupy other civic leadership positions, still refuse to allow the Pledge of Allegiance, the singing of the National Anthem, or even the wearing of a red, white and blue ribbon at graduation for fear of antagonizing someone, there is still a cadre of young Americans who see through the liberal façade, and are ready and willing to wear the uniform of the United States and accept its dangerous missions. Although for many there is still only a titular war against an ethereal terrorist enemy, a difficult concept for many young people to grasp because they lack a real education, there is no national conscription to fill the ranks, as there was in previous wars. A few American patriots in each generation have historically seen this country through some of its most arduous confrontations, from Concord and Lexington, the Alamo and Gettysburg, Belleau Woods and Château Thierry, to Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Normandy, Bastonge, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sahn, and Hue City, to name but a few. As with each threat the United States has faced, the U.S. military is again transforming to confront the new dangers. We no longer face a main force of German or Soviet tank divisions in Western Europe. Today, the enemy is a shadow. It may be a single lunatic terrorist, as with the recent arrest of Jeffrey Cloutier in Washington, D.C., or it may be a sleeper cell cadre of hard-nosed, homicidal-suicidal Muslims, such as those who attacked the United States a year ago today. Much remains to be done as the United States attempts to hunt down remaining al Qaeda terrorists, to bolster homeland security and to take on the terrorist regime of Iraq before it achieves the development of nuclear weapons. There is reason for continued concern, and continued evidence that many Americans still refuse to recognize the threat to our way of living. But there is also this: There is still that cadre of conscientious young men and women who will accept their country’s call during its time of need, without concern for college tuition, personal aggrandizement, or Wall Street wealth. That is something we can celebrate today. Patrick Hayes is a contributing editor to DefenseWatch. He can be reached at gyrene@sftt.us. |
| ARTICLE 11 |
‘What Will You Do on 9/11?’ By Matthew Dodd “What does this first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America mean to you, and what plans do you have for this special and emotional day?” That was the two-part question I asked in an e-mail to hundreds of people and posted on one of the “Soldiers for the Truth” message boards. I am very grateful for the many people who responded to my request and shared their thoughts and experiences with me. The most powerful theme I sensed from the responses I got is that we now share what can be described as a new reality – a new style or approach to warfare, a new way of looking at the world in which we live, and a new way of expressing ourselves to our loved ones (especially our children). Here are some selected excerpts from the e-mail responses I received: “From 04-18 October 01, I was part of a USCG Chaplain team that provided support to families, law enforcement, emergency services, relief agencies, union contractors and heavy equipment operators, along with federal, state, county, and municipal support personnel. It was a real mix of emotions from some of the deepest sorrow to some of the greatest pride I have ever experienced. For 11 September 2002, my daily Mass will be a Mass for the Souls of the Martyrs in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania; as well as for the families, friends, relatives, loved ones and relief workers at those locations.”“September 11 was the jolt this country needed to realize that freedom has to be sustained through service to the country and dedication to it's basic ideals .… We have been given September 11 as the defining event that will make this country write its next great chapter in history. In this defining moment I weep for those who have suffered and renew my trust and support in those who will carry the greatness of this country forward.” “I am absolutely dreading it, and trying to figure out where I should be and with whom, as I cannot believe we are having the first year anniversary. It still leaves me with a sickening feeling of hopelessness. I would much prefer to be in Afghanistan supporting our troops than at home.” “I firmly believe that 9/11 was a direct result of us allowing our federal government to become entangled in foreign alliances, based upon special-interest lobbying that realizes and takes advantage of the corrupt nature of our current government to provide support to countries … that deny their minority … population equality under the law …. Our founders did not warn us against “entangling alliances” for nothing .… The conflict in the Middle East is of such a nature that it recognizes neither territorial boundaries, non-combatants, nor innocent bystanders. This is the mess that our federal government has brought us into, and 9/11 was only the first consequence of our apathy. I pray that we are wise and energetic enough to see the evil that our federal government has brought down upon us, if not for ourselves but for our children.” "For me, 9/11 was a wake-up call. Without God's protection, all the terrible things that happen to other countries will start happening to ours. For more protection, our society must try harder to follow His rules .… May God continue to bless the traditional refuge for the world's downtrodden.” “I can sum it up in two words: Mixed feelings. I am inspired by the firemen and police of New York. But I am repelled by the many “victims’ families” who are suing to cash in. And by the over-valuation of the lives of those victims, compared with the lives of servicemen. Not to mention the physical cowardice of Congress when personally faced with a largely-exaggerated threat of anthrax-by-mail. The country's response in Afghanistan was admirable and timely, though I can't help wondering when the Defense Department will figure out that the way to assault caves is with four-man flame-thrower teams. Nothing else, however high-tech, will work …. The flag-flying and flag-waving since 9/11 seems a little phony to me, all show, little substance.” “I worry not so much for the wife or myself as we are in our late 50s and have had a good life together for 29 years, but the children and grandchildren (should we ever have any) are a different matter. Do not want to leave them a world that was not as good as which we knew as children .…Think my awareness of what is going on around me is greater today, but still not sure it is at an acceptable level. Used to take things for granted. Get up, go to work, come home, all is well. This could easily change in a heartbeat. How many are prepared for that? We have become way too soft as a nation. Electricity, indoor plumbing and refrigeration are all guaranteed by the Constitution. Correct?” “I plan on spending a few quiet minutes remembering two soldiers I knew who died in the attack on the Pentagon, and a very good friend who deployed just after …. Beyond that, I'll do my job, putting men and women in the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. That's the most important thing I can do on Sept 11.” “We can never look at the world the same again. Best guess is it will take 20 years to stop this, but it will cost everyone a little bit of freedom.” “I plan to spend some time in silence and prayer for all the families who did lose loved ones that day. Most of all though, I want 9/11 to help me renew my commitment to live a life of meaning. I want that day to remind me that every moment is precious and that I need to make my life count for something everyday, not just ‘someday.’ God put me on this earth to do His will and I need to stop always thinking about myself. There are so many people in this country alone who need help and compassion that it can no longer be ‘all about me.’ Lastly, I want 9/11 to continue to help me renew my commitment to contribute to this country's security. As it happens, I will be on active duty with the Army National Guard on 9/11, the beginning of a six-month tour away from my wife. I consider myself lucky to be able to make this sacrifice for our great country because there are a few thousand people who will never again be able to enjoy our freedoms. If I can help prevent that from ever happening again, it's worth it.” “Since 9/11 I think the nation is slowly realizing that family, living life, security (i.e. our soldiers), and foreign affairs are more important than the Hollywood gang, the Washington gang, professional sports, materialism, etc. … God Bless America, America Bless God.” “For me 9/11 will be no different than any other day .… I will wonder why 9/11 gets so much attention while millions more Americans have died gruesome deaths at the hands of abortionists. Is the death of an American businessman or woman more valued than an American infant? If so, who set the standard and by what authority? On 9/11, I'll simply ponder this paradox ... and I'll pray for all victims of violence.” “On September 11, 2001, the world changed. On the anniversary of that momentous day in history, I like many others, will probably take some time out of our day and ‘remember when.’ … I will reflect on how we thought, as the remaining superpower, we were protected from radicals who find imposing terror as a necessary means to get across their points (whatever they may be). I will reflect on how we, as a global society, have become the prey to those who have given up on rational thought and have chosen brute force as their means of communication. I will reflect on how we, as a global society, have reached a point in human evolution where we not only have the power to destroy ourselves but also the means and will to do so. In terrorism or any initiation of physical force, no one wins. I will reflect on how … the United States had put our heads in the sand, viewed terror as an ‘other place’ problem, and in some cases allowed terror to go unabated. Now, like the rest of the world, we will no longer live freely but with apprehension if not fear .… On September 11, 2002, I will reflect on how life was so much different then and how it will never be the same.”“We must never forget that these people were murdered. They were civilians. Many were terrorized before they died. There are thousands of orphans – the overall collateral damage is immeasurable .… The press owes it to the world and to the American public to remind us of the horror of it all – and to honor and remember our young men and women who have bravely answered the call of duty and are fighting for our country, willing to make the ultimate sacrifice .… I wonder what famed reporter Ernie Pyle would have written about all this ... I wonder how General Patton would have handled this new type of warfare .... ” I was humbled by the volume and overall intensity of emotion in the responses I got. I regret not being able to include every word of every response. For me, I know 9/11 will be an emotional day. I will remember how relieved I was to finally make it home hours after the plane crashed into the Pentagon, and to see and hug my wife and infant son. I will probably shed a few tears and say a few prayers for those who were killed and deeply scarred by the attacks. I will pray for our government and military leaders and ask for them to be blessed with the wisdom, courage, understanding and strength of character to do what is right for our great country in these challenging times. Most importantly, on 9/11, I will thank God for allowing me to see, hold, and hug my wife and year-older son, and to tell them over and over how much I love them. Contributing Editor Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd is the pen name of an active-duty Marine Corps officer stationed at the Pentagon. He can be reached at mattdodd1775@hotmail.com. |
| ARTICLE 12 |
For the Record: 9/11 – The Year in Words Editor’s Note: From the inspirational to the horrifying to the absurd, here are some of the more memorable quotes from the past twelve months. 020911 The First Sign of Trouble “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be okay. We are returning to the airport …. Just stay quiet.” Transmission at 8:24 a.m. from American Airlines Flight 11 overheard by the Boston Air Traffic Control Center 020911 Out of the Blue “We all looked up. … It [American Flight 11] scooped down … almost like a missile – and then toward the north tower of the 010911 Terrorism Live on TV “I understand Theresa Renaud is with us right now …. “I am in “Oh there’s another one – another plane just hit. [Gasps, yelling] Oh my God! Another plane has just hit – it hit another building, flew right into the middle of it. … That was definitely on purpose … because it flew straight into it.” --Live TV interview with CBS anchor Bryant Gumbel. 020911 A Soldier’s Cry “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll!” UAL 93 passenger Todd Beamer, overheard by GTE operator Lisa Jefferson 010911 Conflicting Instructions “They said it’s not necessary to leave. The second plane hit, and they said, ‘Get the hell out of here.’ ” Tim O’Brien, a survivor of 010911 At Ground Zero “I don’t remember hearing a rumble, but I see the desk shaking. … When I look around, what I see is something close to a nuclear bomb. I see dark smoke. The decision is made to evacuate. We go to the basement and try many different exits, all of which are locked. … We can’t get out.” New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani, on his witnessing WTC collapse, in Time magazine 020911 A Deafening Tidal Wave “How do you describe the sound of a 110-story building coming down directly above you? It sounded like what it was: a deafening tidal wave of building material coming down on my head. … The explosion was extreme, the noise impossible to describe. … It’s hard for me to imagine now that when I was on the ground awaiting my doom, hearing that noise, thousands of people were dying. That noise is a noise thousands of people heard when they died. When it hit, everything went instantly black.” 010911 President Bush Remarks “Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes or in their offices: secretaries, businessmen and –women, military and federal workers, moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.” President George W. Bush, Oval Office remarks 010911 A Word from Academia “Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote.” “This is going to be a dividing point in history. If they still teach history 100 years from now, children will still be reading about this day. We haven’t seen such destruction on our own soil since the Civil War.” Historian David McCullough in The 010911 No Sympathy “The people here are gloating over the American grief …. Palestinians have been crying and suffering, and now it is time for Americans to cry and suffer.” Emad Salameh, Palestinian taxi driver, in The Washington Post 010911 A Deadly and Vicious Enemy “This is a formidable enemy. To dismiss it as a bunch of cowards perpetrating senseless acts of violence is complacent nonsense. People willing to kill thousands of innocents while they kill themselves are not cowards. They are deadly, vicious warriors and need to be treated as such …. The enemy has identified itself in public and openly. Our delicate sensibilities have prevented us from pronouncing its name. Its name is radical Islam.” Columnist Charles Krauthammer, in The 010912 A Summons to War “It is my duty as head of this department to tell you that more, much more will be asked of you in the weeks and months ahead. This is especially true of those who are in the field. We face powerful and terrible enemies, enemies we intend to vanquish, so that moments of horror like yesterday will be stopped.” Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, in a message to the U.S. armed forces 010913 Such Polite Young Men “They were good neighbors, as far as neighbors go. They were quiet. They kept the lawn mowed. They put the garbage out when it was needed to be put out.” Hank Habora, Florida neighbor of several 9/11 hijackers, in The Los Angeles Times. 010913 A Rude Wake-up Call “So we are paying the price of our complacency – the price of a decade-long flight from seriousness in the way we view public affairs. Since the end of the cold war, we have been bound together by little more than collective consumerism …. ” Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter 010914 The World Hears You “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” President Bush, to World Trade Center rescue workers 010914 Good Muslims and Bad Muslims “Your excellency recognizes the repercussions of … speculations being made by some in the media in the United States and attempts to openly accuse Arabs and Muslims in general …. Arabs and Muslims stand aloof from such acts that no sane and God-believing individual would commit.” Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, in telephone call to Presidnet Bush 010914 Aim More Carefully Next Time “If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who did not vote for him! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes’ destination of California – these were places that voted against Bush! Why kill them? Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, in WSJ.com 010915 From the Commander-in-Chief“The message is for everybody who wears the uniform: Get ready …. We’re at war. There has been an act of war declared upon America by terrorists and we will respond accordingly …. We will smoke them out of their holes, we’ll get them running, and we’ll bring them to justice.” President Bush, remarks at Camp David 010916 I Feel Your Pain“If your rulers respect and cherish the blood of your people, why do you find it easy to shed the blood of others, the blood of Arabs and Muslims? Americans should feel the pain wich they have inflicted on other peoples …. ” Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in a “letter” to the American people 010916 We’re in New Territory “This [directive authorizing fighters to fire on civilian aircraft] is new territory for all of us. Aircrew members are going through a lot of soul-searching.” Air National Guard Director Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver, in The Los Angeles Times 010916 Let’s Put This in Context “Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a ‘cowardly’ attack on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’ but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specified American alliances and actions? … And if the word ‘cowardly’ is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others.” Novelist Susan Sontag, in The New Yorker magazine. 010917 We Are All New Yorkers“We are all New Yorkers. We are all the target, all under a shared siege, all bonded in spirit and in blood. Each and every American was hit last week -- and now we must take the hard steps necessary to protect our democratic way of life from an enemy with absolutely no respect for life, even his own.” Col. David Hackworth, in DefenseWatch 010918 Hey, Coming in Second Isn’t Too Bad!“It sounds like you might have had two or three more teams here that had other targets in mind. That wouldn’t surprise me at all. Four got through but maybe two didn’t. That’s a pretty good percentage.” Former FBI Counterterrorism official Robert Blitzer, in The Washington Post 010919 Been There, Done That “For the Americans, introducing land forces [in Afghanistan] would not lead to anything good. It would not bring anyone laurels.” Former Soviet Army Gen. Boris Gromov, in The Washington Post 010920 The Long Struggle Begins “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated …. Every nation in every region has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” President Bush, Address to Congress 010925 No Clear Ending “There’s not going to be a D-Day as such, and I’m sure there will not be a signing ceremony on the Missouri as such. … It is something that will involve a sustained effort over a good period of time.” Rumsfeld to Pentagon reporters 010927 Never Saw It Coming “If someone had called us and said, ‘We have a hijacking 100 miles out coming from Europe or South America, there are terrorists aboard, and they’ve taken over the airplane, that’s a scenario we’ve practiced. We did not practice – and I wish to God we had – a scenario where this takes off out of Boston and minutes later crashes into New York City. This is a whole new ball game.” NORAD commander Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, in The New York Times 010928 Last Will and Testament “Everybody hates death, fears death. But only those, the believers who know the life after death, would be the ones seeking death.” 9/11 Hijacking Ringleader Mohammad Atta, in his last will 011001 Not in My Living Room “The [American] flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war. [My daughter] tells me I’m wrong – the flag means standing together and honoring the dead and saying no to terrorism. I tell her she can buy a flag with her own money and fly it out her bedroom window … but the living room is off-limits.” Columnist Katha Pollit in the left-wing magazine, The Nation 011007 The Battle Begins “On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan …. The battle is now joined on many fronts.” President Bush in address to the nation 011007 Solid Proof “There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the mind of anyone who has been through all of the available evidence, including intelligence material, that these attacks were carried out by the al Qaeda network masterminded by Osama bin Laden.” British Prime Minister Tony Blair to reporters 011009 Boy, Was I Wrong“Bin Laden used to come to us when America – underline, America – through the CIA and Saudi Arabia, were helping our brother mujahideen in Afghanistan to get rid of … Soviet Union forces. [He] came and said, ‘Thank you. Thank you for bringing the Americans to help us.’ At that time, I thought he couldn’t lead eight ducks across the street.” Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, to The New York Times 011017 Anthrax in the Mail “[The letter] contained a very strong form of anthrax, a very potent form of anthrax that was clearly produced by someone who knows what he or she was doing.” Senate Majority Leader Tom Dashle, on the tainted letter sent to his office 011018 Good News and Bad News“The good news is that there are many agencies working on all of these [terrorist-related] issues. The bad news is that there are many federal agencies working on all of these issues.” Sen. Fred Thompson, R-TN, in The New York Times 011019 Some Friendly Advice to the Taliban “When you decide to surrender, approach United States forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your back, muzzle towards the ground. Remove your magazine and expel any rounds. Doing this is your only chance of survival.” U.S. troops’ message to Taliban fighters, reported in The Washington Post 011022 Go Ahead – Say It “This is going to sound partisan … but the fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration was not very interested in our intelligence community, did not spend very much time worrying about or using it, or investing in it. It’s impossible not to go there if you really do an anatomy of why we are where we are today.” House Intelligence Community Chairman Rep. Porter Goss, to The New York Times 011023 Don’t Leak This Memo! “It is … vital that Defense Department employees, as well as persons in other organizations that support DoD, exercise great caution in discussing information related to DoD work, regardless of their duties. … Much of the information we use to conduct DoD’s operations must be withheld from public release …. ” Oct. 18 memo from Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz leaked to The Washington Post 011025 Let’s Talk with Iran “We have contacts with the Iranians at an interesting level, and we are receiving signals, and we will explore opportunities with them.” Secretary of State Colin Powell in The Washington Post 011030 On Second Thought, the Hell with It “Our national interests lie with antagonizing the Great Satan. … Our foreign policy, constitution, religion, and people reject any compromise with oppressor America.” Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi, Iran’s judicial chief, in The Washington Post 011101 Missiles and Nukes“Had these people [al Qaeda] had ballistic missile technology, there’s not the slightest doubt in my mind that they would have used it [and would have] coupled it with a weapon of mass destruction …. ” Undersecretary of State John Bolton, to reporters 011101 Just the Facts, Ma’am … “I actually don’t have an opinion on that [whether the Pentagon on 9/11 was a legitimate military target], and it’s important that I not have an opinion on that … in my capacity right now. … [A]s a journalist, I feel strongly that’s something I should not be taking a position on.” ABC News President David Westin, remarks to journalism students 011101 … Until Matt Drudge Quotes Me, That Is “I was wrong .… Under any interpretation, the attack on the Pentagon was criminal and entirely without justification.” Westin, later the same day 011205 More Journalistic Detachment“What makes the president … think that he has the right to go into a sovereign country and bomb the people? … What gives him the authority to go into other countries and bomb them, which is what he is threatening to do? Reporter Helen Thomas question to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer 011209 No Pushover“Unlike the Taliban, Saddam [Hussein] has real money to buy off adversaries. Unlike Afghanistan, his country is strategically critical to all its neighbors, most of whom fear any change to the status quo. And unlike bin Laden, Saddam may not make himself an easy, obvious target.” Columnist Thomas Friedman, in The New York Times 011213 Bin Laden Confession “We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all …. We had notification since the previous Thursday [Sept. 6, 2001] that the event would take place that day [on 9/11].” Osama bin Laden, in videotaped conversation in Afghanistan aired on TV. 011213 An Open-Minded Dad “This is nonsense, total nonsense. But this is to be expected from the Americans.” Mohamed al-Amir, the father of hijacker Mohamed Atta, on the bin Laden videotape 012220 Not Exactly Club Med “It's exactly what I thought it would be.” Accused “American Taliban John Walker Lindh, on fighting with the Taliban 011221 And You Thought Westin Shot His Mouth Off“Machine-gunners are criminals. Snipers are just smarter criminals. They're more stealthy.” Marine Capt. Shane Tomko, describing his sniper unit011225 To a Soldier Far Away “I wish you a merry Christmas with all my heart. I will pray so you come home soon.” Christmas card greeting to soldiers in Afghanistan by seventh-grader Steven Pena 011227 He Was Just Smoking His Socks “He's not capable of carrying this out on his own. From what we know of him, there's definitely somebody behind him. He was not the one who was, sort of, the orchestrator of this kind of thing.” London mosque chairman Richard Haqq Baker, describing accused aircraft shoe bomber Richard C. Reid 011228 Ocean View, No Paradise “I would characterize Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as the least worst place we could have selected. Its disadvantages … seem to be modest relative to the alternatives.” Rumsfeld on the decision to send al Qaeda captives to Cuba 011231 Tough It Out“[I]n a crisis you have to be optimistic. When I said the spirit of the city would be stronger, I didn’t know that. I just hoped it. There are parts of you that say, ‘Maybe we’re not going to get through this.’ You don’t listen to them.” New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani, in Time magazine interview 020102 Clinton’s Priorities“Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration's supporters, Janet Reno's objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism.” Former Clinton political aide Dick Morris, in a New York Post column 020124 Save the Pork “I’m one of the hawks … when it comes to defense, but I’m becoming a little bit nervous as I hear that we’re going to spend more and more and more on the military. It’s going to have to come out of somewhere, out of someone else’s hide. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV., to reporters 020128 With Friends Like These“As your friends and as your allies, we are very proud of our relationship with you. In the current environment, we find it very difficult to defend America, and so we keep our silence. Because, to be very frank with you, how can we defend America?” Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, to U.S. reporters 021129 Pre-emption Strategy“I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with weapons of mass destruction.” Bush, in State of the Union speech 020131 I Never Read Tom Clancy’s ‘Debt of Honor’“Who would have imagined, only a few months ago, that terrorists would take commercial airliners, turn them into missiles, and use them to strike the World Trader Center, killing thousands?” Rumsfeld in a speech to the National Defense University 020313 Still More Journalistic Detachment “Whether it is an ill-specified axis of evil, or a decision to make tactical nuclear war thinkable, or a domestic ‘shadow government,’ or deliberately leaked plans to attack Iraq, George W. Bush in his own way is as frightening as al Qaeda.” Boston Globe columnist Robert Kuttner 020318 They Say Hitler Liked Dogs “He loves his family and friends, but he especially adores our mother.” Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed on his half-brother, Osama bin Laden 020412 Good News: She Lost in the Primary (I) “”We know now there were numerous warnings of the events to come on Sept. 11 …. What did this administration know and when did they know it about the events of Sept. 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?” Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-GA., in a radio interview 020412 Good News: She Lost in the Primary (II) “I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9/11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For example, it is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which, have soared since September 11. On the other hand, what is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration, have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11.” Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-GA., interview 020521 Asleep at FBI Headquarters The Minneapolis [FBI] agents’ initial thought was to obtain a criminal search warrant [for accused al Qaeda suspect Zacarias Moussaoui], but in order to do so, they needed to get FBI Headquarters‘ … approval in order to ask for DOJ OIPR‘s approval to contact the United States Attorney‘s Office in Minnesota. Prior to and even after receipt of information provided by the French [intelligence], FBIHQ personnel disputed with the Minneapolis agents the existence of probable cause to believe that a criminal violation had occurred/was occurring. As such, FBIHQ personnel refused to contact OIPR to attempt to get the authority. FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley in bombshell memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller 020424 With Friends Like These, Cont’d“We consider the United States and its current administration a first-class sponsor of international terrorism, and it along with Israel form an axis of terrorism and evil in the world.” A joint letter from 126 Saudi Arabian scholars, in The Washington Post 020708 Either Way Is Fine “Osama bin Laden, he may be alive. If he is, we’ll get him. If he’s not alive, we got him.” President Bush, in a press conference 020808 Those Two Earlier Invasions Don’t Count “The right course is of respect to the security and rights of others, through dealing with others in peace and establishing the obligations required by way of equitable dialogue and on the basis of international law and international covenants. The right way is that the Security Council should reply to the questions raised by Iraq, and should honor its obligations under its own resolutions.” Saddam Hussein, in a Baghdad speech 020827 Hyping the Disaster “[A]re we ready to watch, again and again, those passenger planes piercing the towers and thousands of people literally running for their lives? Can we again abide the heartbreaking images of husbands looking for wives, parents searching for children, families and friends torn asunder? Even for those among us who lost nothing more precious that day than our own arrogant sense of security, the wound remains tender and raw. I want to believe the networks will show restraint, but then I remember these are the same minds behind ''Fear Factor'' and ''Temptation Island.'' Media Columnist Renee Graham in The Boston Globe 020905 Blast from the Past“Fundamental changes are taking place in the historical policies of the United States with regard to human rights, our role in the community of nations and the Middle East peace process …. Belligerent and divisive voices now seem to be dominant in Washington, but they do not yet reflect final decisions of the president, Congress or the courts. It is crucial that the historical and well-founded American commitments prevail: to peace, justice, human rights, the environment and international cooperation. Former President Jimmy Carter, writing in The Washington Post 020906 Why Reagan Won “It is almost humorous that one of the most ineffective presidents in history would advise the president to do nothing. This do-nothing attitude was shared by former President Bill Clinton, who ignored several major terrorist attacks during the ‘90s, eventually contributing to the events of Sept. 11.” R. Darren Brewer, in letter to The Washington Post responding to Carter 020911 This We Know Today “We know more now than we did a year ago about the people who wish to harm us. Much of the knowledge was available to us before 9/11, and was blithely ignored; much is new. From the videotaped boasting of Osama bin Laden to intelligence painstakingly collected in Hamburg, Karachi and Singapore, we now know -- we can no longer wish away the knowledge -- that a network of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is bent on doing great damage to America and its allies. We know that this network trained thousands of people to varying levels of lethality, and that most of those remain at large. We know that al Qaeda practiced with chemical weapons and showed interest in nuclear and radiological arms. In the year since al Qaeda's greatest success, its agents have managed to kill others -- Germans touring a synagogue in Tunisia, French workers aboard a bus in Pakistan -- and may have tried to blow up a U.S. plane over the Atlantic Ocean. We know that, for al Qaeda, the war continues.” Editorial, The Washington Post 020911 Do More Than Remember“The temptation on an anniversary like today's is to recall our loss and grief, and there is a place for that in the ceremonies in Washington, Pennsylvania and New York. But we also want to remember the anger, and the resolve, this country felt a year ago because the great task that started that day remains unfinished one year later. Editorial, The Wall Street Journal |
| ARTICLE 13 |
For the Record: 9/11 by the Numbers The 9/11 Attacks Number of hijackers on 9/11 – 19 Total Casualties on 9/11 – 3,158 World Trade Center Fatalities – 2,974 Estimated number of people in the WTC Towers on 9/11 – 10,000-14,000 Number of countries with citizens killed in the WTC attacks – 115 Pentagon Fatalities – 184 Shanksville, Pa. Fatalities (UA Flight 93) – 40 Previous Most Deadly Terrorism Incident (United States) – 168 [i] Estimated Cost to al Qaeda of Carrying out the 9/11 Attacks – $500,000 Estimated Economic Cost to the United States from 9/11 – $121 billion [ii] Stock market losses during the first week of trading after 9/11/01 – $1.38 trillion [iii] Number of estimated U.S. job losses in 2002 related to the 9/11 attacks – 1.6 million Amount of aid for victims’ families raised by U.S. charities – $1.4 billion [iv] The War against Terrorism Number of U.S. military fatalities – 51 Number of Taliban and al Qaeda Fighters – 40,000 [v] Estimated Taliban and al Qaeda fatalities – 12,000 [vi] Number of Taliban and al Qaeda captured – 2,000 app. [vii] Estimated monthly cost of Operation Enduring Freedom – $10 billion [viii] Maximum number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan – 7,000 [ix] Number of FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 probes – 7,000 [x] Number of years between disclosure of U.S. capability to intercept OBL cell phones and al Qaeda communications shift, and 9/11 – 3 [xi] Number of Middle East inhabitants receiving U.S. tourist visas in the first seven months after 9/11 – 50,000 [xii] Number of foreign countries joining the U.S. military in Afghanistan – 20 Number of countries offering military assistance in the war – 136 [xiii] Number of mobilized National Guard and Reserve personnel 8/31/02 – 76,518 [xiv] National Guard and Reserve personnel in first call-up, 9/17/01 – 35,000 [xv] Percentage of Kuwaiti residents who said 9/11 attacks were “totally justifiable” – 18 [xvi] Percentage of U.S. residents who said 9/11 attacks were “totally justifiable” – 5 [xvii] Number of Muslims detained in the United States since 9/11 – 1,200 app. [xviii] Number still in detention as of 5/10/02 – 750 Number of detainees released from custody as of June 2002 – 650 app. Number in detention on 5/10 who had been deported by June 2002 – 671 Number still in custody as of June 2002 – 81 Number convicted or pleaded guilty – 72 Number of al Qaeda “sleepers” suspected in the United States, 9/11/02 – app. 100 [xix] Number of al Qaeda “sleepers” believed to be in the Europe, 4/15/02 – 300 [xx] Number of suspected al Qaeda plots broken up in the week before 9/11/02 – 7 [xxi] Number of suspected al Qaeda attacks worldwide since 9/11/01 – 4 [xxii] Number of copies of Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War, released on 9/11/01 – 15,000 Number of copies ordered of Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War, second printing, 9/12/01 – 100,000 [xxiii] Number of miles Geraldo Rivera had to travel in Afghanistan in five hours on Dec. 6, 2001 to cover events in Khandahar and Tora Bora on the same day – several hundred The Home Front Number of federal agencies with homeland security role (9/11/01) – 141 Number of federal agencies with homeland security role (9/11/02) – 141 Number of American flags sold by Wal-Mart on 9/12/01 – 200,000 [xxiv] Ratio of U.S. food poisoning deaths to terrorism deaths, 2001 – 3:5 [xxv] Number of times President George Bush visited WTC ground zero after 9/11 – 2 Number of times President Clinton visited WTC after 1993 bombing – 0
[i] Oklahoma City Federal Courthouse bombing, Apr. 19, 1995 [ii] Includes property destruction, airline losses, increased Pentagon spending for the war against terrorism, and other business loss estimates [iii] Newsweek magazine, 10/1/01 [iv] As of March 11, 2002 [v] Included 8,000 Afghan Taliban, 25,000 Afghan conscripts, 9,000 “foreign volunteers” and 3,000 al Qaeda fighters [vi] Includes 4,000 Taliban fighters and 8,000 “Afghan Arabs” as of mid-January 2002 [vii] White House, 9/11/02 [viii] Estimated at [ix] March 2002 [x] Newsweek, 10/1/01 [xi] “Inside al Qaeda,” Rohan Gunaratna, P.12 [xii] U.S. State Department [xiii] As of mid-January 2002 [xiv] DoD [xv] DoD [xvi] Gallup poll [xvii] Gallup poll [xviii] Los Angelse Times, 9/11/02 [xix] FBI sources [xx] “Inside al Qaeda,” Rohan Gunaratna [xxi] Various news accounts [xxii] Various news accounts [xxiii] Newsweek magazine [xxiv] NBC News [xxv] CDC
|
| ARTICLE 14 |
9/11 – Yesterday and Today Editor’s Note: The following email reflecting on the events of 9/11 from the perspective of the day before the attacks and the day of the attacks, has widely circulated over the internet as the anniversary approached. We thought it fitting to include here as well: What a Difference a Day Makes! On Monday, we emailed jokes. On Tuesday, we did not. On Monday, we thought that we were secure. On Tuesday, we learned better. On Monday, we were talking about heroes as being athletes. On Tuesday, we relearned who our heroes are. On Monday, we were irritated that our rebate checks had not arrived. On Tuesday, we gave money away to people we had never met. On Monday, there were people fighting against praying in school. On Tuesday, you would have been hard-pressed to find a school where someone was not praying. On Monday, people argued with their kids about picking up their room. On Tuesday, the same people could not get home fast enough to hug their kids. On Monday, people were upset that they had to wait six minutes in a fast-food line. On Tuesday, people didn't care about waiting up to six hours to give blood to the dying. On Monday, we waved our flags signifying our cultural diversity. On Tuesday, we waved only the American flag. On Monday, there were people trying to separate each other by race, sex, color and creed. On Tuesday, they were all holding hands. On Monday, we were man or woman, black or white, old or young, rich or poor, gay or straight, Christian or non-Christian. On Tuesday, we were Americans. On Monday, politician argued about budget surpluses On Tuesday, grief-stricken, they sang, “God Bless America.” On Monday, the president was going to Florida to read to children. On Tuesday, he returned to Washington, D.C., to protect our children. On Monday, we had families. On Tuesday, we had orphans. On Monday, people went to work as usual. On Tuesday, they died. On Monday, people were fighting the 10 commandments on government property. On Tuesday, the same people all said, “God help us all,” while thinking, “Thou Shall Not Kill.” It is sadly ironic how it takes horrific events to place things into perspective, but it has. The lessons learned on Sept 11, 2001, the things we have taken for granted, the things that have been forgotten or overlooked, hopefully will never be forgotten again. |
| Medal of Honor |
| ARTICLE 15 |
Medal of Honor Recipient – Stockdale, James B. Capt. USN Rank and organization: Rear Admiral (then Captain), U.S. Navy. Place and date: Hoa Lo prison, Hanoi, North Vietnam, 4 September 1969. Entered service at: Abingdon, Ill. Born: 23 December 1923, Abingdon, Ill. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while senior naval officer in the Prisoner of War camps of North Vietnam. Recognized by his captors as the leader in the Prisoners’ of War resistance to interrogation and in their refusal to participate in propaganda exploitation, Rear Adm. Stockdale was singled out for interrogation and attendant torture after he was detected in a covert communications attempt. Sensing the start of another purge, and aware that his earlier efforts at self-disfiguration to dissuade his captors from exploiting him for propaganda purposes had resulted in cruel and agonizing punishment, Rear Adm. Stockdale resolved to make himself a symbol of resistance regardless of personal sacrifice. He deliberately inflicted a near-mortal wound to his person in order to convince his captors of his willingness to give up his life rather than capitulate. He was subsequently discovered and revived by the North Vietnamese who, convinced of his indomitable spirit, abated in their employment of excessive harassment and torture toward all of the Prisoners of War. By his heroic action, at great peril to himself, he earned the everlasting gratitude of his fellow prisoners and of his country. Rear Adm. Stockdale's valiant leadership and extraordinary courage in a hostile environment sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service. Editor’s Note: If you know of any MOH recipient who is hospitalized or has passed away recently, please email DefenseWatch at dweditor@yahoo.com. |
| EDITOR'S NOTE: |
Your Support is Important! The ultimate success in reviving and expanding SFTT depends on everyone. We need your financial contributions to continue our operation. While any amount is welcome, we suggest a $30 annual contribution from each member will enable us to succeed. The IRS recognizes SFTT as a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Educational Foundation (IRS EIN 31-1592564). Donations are tax deductible. Send us some moral support and encouragement to help in the struggle to improve combat readiness. With our new PayPal web page you can contribute online here at sftt.us using a major credit card. Or mail your checks to:
Table of Contents |
| EDITOR'S NOTE: |
Feedback Wanted DefenseWatch has expanded the reader Feedback section of DefenseWatch to a separate web page accessible through sftt.us. The new section is designed to provide readers who want to add their contribution to an issue to submit letters or commentary articles. You can find the SFTT Feedback window on the right-hand column of the SFTT home page. Our guidelines are simple and few: Feedback articles can be as brief as several paragraphs or as long as 1,000 words. When submitting a response to a particular article or commentary, please mention the article by headline and date. We allow pen names but require the sender's actual name and contact telephone number for verification purposes. SFTT reserves the right to edit articles, or refuse publication of any submission for libel or inappropriate language. Send your comments to dwfeedback@yahoo.com. |
| EDITOR'S NOTE: |
Article Submission Procedures/Subject Editors Sought 1. Try to keep articles to 750 words or less. SUBMIT IN MS WORD FORMAT, if possible! 2. Submit your piece to one of the following editors: Ed Offley, Editor dweditor@yahoo.com J. David Galland, Deputy Editor DefenseWatch is looking for volunteer subject editors willing to assist in screening and editing article submissions. We are looking for experts in the following areas: U.S. Army, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Operations forces/counter-terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and veterans affairs. If interested in joining the DefenseWatch team, please contact Ed Offley at dweditor@yahoo.com. |
| GLOSSARY OF MILITARY ACRONYMS |
We've had numerous requests from troops in different branches of the military to establish this link so that we will all know how "all you others" talk that talk. The DoD site is not working but the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists has an excellent online acronym roster. Please see below: |
| HACK BOOK SALES |
Hack's books, Steel My Soldiers' Hearts, About Face, Hazardous Duty, The Price of Honor and The Vietnam Primer can be found at www.hackworth.com. They make a great addition to any library. Hack is offering them at a special SFTT price. |
